We Must Be Brave.

The voice above depicts being boxed in, needing to escape what is untenable. Who might these people be?

Perhaps they are students, any of us at some time, focused on personal ups and downs, engaged and preoccupied, never anticipating lives threatened or lost. Or teachers, concentrating every minute on students and learning, not dwelling on unpredictable threats to classroom safety. Or ordinary people enjoying their most satisfying experiences, never imagining the inexplicable reversal of fortune from peace to trauma.

The years of polite, logical dialogue seem to have persuaded no one toward a lasting solution to the crisis and national emergency of gun violence. All of us are trapped in this. Our best thinkers themselves escape out of a box by thinking out of the box. Let us imagine ourselves out of the confining box of gun violence and free to sing of aspirations and happiness, leaving behind no anguished voices trapped in some horrific and unnecessary circumstance such as portrayed in the lyrics above.

Until we reach that sublime time, we can find solace in remembering those near to us who we have lost in "The Song Must Live On" as captured in the lyrics and music below.

Some highlights are:

• One of the NRA founders was a New York Times reporter who, shortly after the Civil War, concluded that Union troops could have performed better if they had been more experienced using firearms.
• The NRA for most of its history focused on marksmanship and didn't mention the 2nd Amendment in publications.
• 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms" first became a political issue in the 1960's when Bobby Seale, Huey Newton and the Black Panthers successfully asserted this right by carrying loaded shotguns to the State House in Sacramento and on the streets in CA.
• Political opposition to the "right to bear arms" quickly developed in the 1960's with bipartisan support for gun control at state and federal levels.
• An insurgent group at the NRA's 1974 convention succeeded in electing new leadership and passing 15 new bylaws that prioritized lobbying by the NRA to protect gun ownership and right to bear arms based on the 2nd Amendment.
• The Supreme Court in 2008 for the first time decided a case dealing with the 2nd Amendment, District of Columbia v. Heller, with Heller petitioning to overturn DC's ban on owning handguns. The decision was in favor of Heller, with some caveats expressed in the Supreme Court's decision.

LISTEN to the dramatic 90-minute podcast to hear about the items above, and for insights into understanding the four comma-separated phrases in the 2nd Amendment:

• A well regulated Militia,
• being necessary to the security of a free State,
• the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
• shall not be infringed.

He stated "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

Did he correctly scope this out?

Did he and the like-minded post-1974 NRA governing body tarnish NRA's historic reputation as leading advocate of firearms training and safety? Hoppe's 9 or Rem can't fix this.

Did he truly represent you?

• 73 to 81 million adult gun owners in the U.S.
• 5 million NRA members, with majority supporting
  • ban on assault-style weapons
  • ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines

            (Washington Post, Christopher Ingraham, October 2015)

Please contact me with suggestions or comments.

The situation of non-law-abiding or anti-social individuals possessing and using guns to perpetrate unjust violence on others is universally considered unacceptable. Such violence endangers not only those on the front line of law enforcement, but reaches further to threaten many other members of society whose fundamental rights are infringed by such violence.

Explanations for the high frequency of gun violence in America often mention the inevitability of "bad guys" or "disturbed individuals", particular loopholes in gun laws, inconsistent enforcement of existing gun laws, differing 2nd Amendment interpretations, and the protections afforded to individuals by an array of Constitutional rights.

Socio-political progress such as to reduce gun violence requires compromise between individual rights and collective rights to enhance our general well-being. Societal compromises are already in place, for instance standard rules to enhance motor vehicle and pedestrian safety on public shared roads.

Let us examine the four comma-separated phrases in the 2nd Amendment, with the goal of finding out if compromise between individual and society is actually built into the words:

• A well regulated Militia,
• being necessary to the security of a free State,
• the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
• shall not be infringed.

Consider the following:

• Historically, with little basic training and quickly-emerging security threats, the only way to guarantee America's military readiness was to not infringe on people's right to own and bear arms, with the assumption that people would train and practice on their own, and always have weapons at hand. Then people would be ready to participate in the state militia, which would consequently look more "regulated" or regular. This logic was enshrined in the 2nd Amendment.
• A New York Times reporter who, shortly after the Civil War concluded that Union troops could have performed better if they had been more experienced using firearms, is reputed to be one of the NRA founders. For most of its history, the NRA focused on marksmanship and didn't mention the 2nd Amendment in publications.
• Wrapping our flag around the 2nd Amendment has been effective at stifling discussion regarding the true security implications of millions of existing assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, etc. and their growing numbers.
• American politics has managed to avoid or backslide on gun control over recent decades, based on a narrow interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to protect guns and individual gun possession, as opposed to fitting into the overall task of securing America and Americans.

Regarding mental health rights protections and public policy involving mental health that may impact gun possession:

• Even experts and rights advocates are ambivalent about stigmatizing those who have exhibited signs of mental illness or instability.
• Mental health professionals stake their careers on the possibility of bringing challenged people back into a happy, successful, socially acceptable mainstream, which may include possessing guns.
• Mental health is a soft, less-than-determinant science, so gun control based on mental health diagnosis will likely be difficult to sustain through the potential challenges.

For socio-political reasons, the strategies of much tighter gun control laws and much stronger mental health-based constraints on gun possession don't seem politically feasible at this moment. They also are probably somewhat peripheral since:

• Factors of gun possession or mental health cannot be shown to consistently anticipate or predict actual acts of gun violence.
• Without a cause-and-effect link, how can tighter gun control laws and mental-health-based constraints on gun possession possibly be demonstrated to consistently keep us safe, and thereby be justified?

Questions to ponder:

• Are the 1st Amendment (uninfringed free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition) and the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms) inextricably linked to protect and defend Americans and their values?
• What is the most practical course of action to reduce the risk and impact of mass shootings?
• In what way can each of us contribute to the debate over keeping us safe at schools, churches, events and other public venues?
• What can society engineer that could gain wide public understanding, support and funding?

Clouds of frustration and disappointment have sidelined the technology known as "smart gun" which describes a weapon that only the gun's owner can shoot. Smart gun relies on controls that authenticate the person who holds the weapon as its owner before enabling its discharge.

• A smart gun records for reference in its memory the owner's fingerprints and the owner's characteristic physical handling of the smart gun.
• When someone tries to discharge a smart gun, the device's sensors detect precise biometric details from the person currently holding the weapon, such as fingerprints, the shape of the person's hand, and how the hand functions as the weapon is held and the hand goes through motions such as squeezing the trigger.
• The smart gun then analyzes the distinctive biometrics of the person currently holding the gun, and compares these to stored reference biometrics for the gun owner. The smart gun then decides to allow or not allow the weapon to discharge.

Though smart gun is a successfully demonstrated technology, smart gun could not overcome many socio-political barriers:

• Smart gun technology, despite likely advances, would always add unacceptable cost to newly manufactured weapons
• Smart gun does not address many continuing vulnerabilities:
  • The vast base of existing weapons owned by Americans cannot or likely would not be retrofitted with smart gun technology.
  • Significant numbers of new weapons enter circulation through paths other than standard manufacture, including
    • non-regulated manufacture
    • DIY home-made manufacture
    • weapons that are stolen from legitimate owners
    • weapons that are modified from their original design

Will the cloud of frustration and disappointment that sidelined smart gun also block our vision to pursue possibly more successful concepts to keep us safe from gun violence, particularly mass shootings at schools, churches, events and other public venues?

Questions to ponder:

• What is the most practical course of action to reduce the risk and impact of mass shootings?
• In what way can each of us contribute to the debate over keeping us safe at schools, churches, events and other public venues?
• What can society engineer that could gain wide public understanding, support and funding?

The Cold War is a historic standoff between superpowers US and Russia, with each investing vast sums for decades to build and maintain abundant and opposing nuclear offensive capabilities that guarantee mutually assured destruction (MAD).

• If either side initiates a first strike, then the other retaliates, with near-complete destruction suffered by both sides that makes initiating a first strike unthinkable.
• America alternatively has considered the strategic defense initiative (SDI) of antiballistic missiles to shoot down first-strike missiles. The effectiveness of this approach is questionable against today's state-of-the-art offensive weapon-delivering missiles with their constantly improving propulsion, control, stealth and countermeasure strategies.
• By contrast, while hand-held firearms are quicker-shooting and more powerful today, these conventional weapons have not changed in most fundamental ways since their invention many centuries ago.
• State-of-the-art sensing technology and digital processing should be able to easily, cheaply, and quickly identify and pinpoint the source of conventional firearms discharge, and immediately report the exact location to authorities.
• Similarly, there are multiple technology-based possibilities for how to respond effectively to directly and successfully confront the situation of an imminent mass shooting using a device that disables both the firearm and the shooter.

Can safety from gun violence at schools, churches, events and other public venues be relegated to the status of a Cold War?

• Will a perpetrator realize the futility of initiating a strike, because MAD totally subverts the mass shooter's goals by vastly reducing or eliminating the impact?
• Can a system of detection, reporting and response demonstrate a MAD outcome consistently and regularly, thereby encouraging a Cold War-style standoff but with the difference that the outcome is heavily tilted or biased to minimize a shooter's impact?
• Can particular demonstrated methods to confront the situation of an imminent mass shooting be strongly and publicly supported by all elements of society including science, engineering, law, politicians and stakeholders?
• Ultimately will the goal be met to dissuade a perpetrator before a tragic event is ever planned, based on the futility for a shooter of getting into a MAD scenario where the outcome is not only assured but tilted against the perpetrator?

Whether or not advanced technological solutions ultimately are implemented, exploring the MAD concept for dealing with gun violence and mass shootings will require increased research investment in several branches of the sciences as well as engineering.

"...unsure whether the blasts were coming from outside or inside...maybe it was a sniper...could be firecrackers...then the fire alarm...don't have any description yet...separate radio system...if I'd just heard more shots...if I knew where he was...it was all so fast..."

What would be required for American society to succeed in directly confronting and countering the firepower of a mass shooter using technology?

• Can science and technology actually help reduce gun violence, even as weapons such as the semi-automatic weapons used by mass shooters are further advanced with new materials, greater functionality, and lower cost?
• Can we see through the past promises, such as smart guns, that took us into clouds of frustration and disappointment?
• Do we have what it takes to seek out and explore reasonable investment risks to pursue a future of practical or at least possible solutions?
• Will the cloud of frustration and disappointment that sidelined smart gun also blind us from pursuing possibly more successful concepts to keep us safe from gun violence, particularly mass shootings at schools, churches, events and other public venues?
• How can we use science and technology to complement socio-political strategies of tighter gun control laws and stronger mental health-based constraints on gun possession which, alone, probably cannot consistently keep us safe?
• How can we use science and technology to add value to armed guards and the arming of some teachers in schools, by providing logistics support that cannot easily be evaded?

The path to keeping schools, churches, events and other public venues safe from gun violence can be partitioned into three separate steps:

• Detect:
  • apply reasonably robust monitoring (beyond a bag and weapons search) of individuals and property at the protected location with:
    • a mechanism to identify and authenticate each individual that is potentially at the location using:
      • personal ID or biometric database including information on visual appearance, face, retina scan, voice and touch to authenticate individuals entering the location. This database could be generated in advance and stored as a reference, or created just-in-time, non-disruptively, at the initial entry point at an event, then used to follow the individual.
      • temporary wristband or other badge that is carried and observable to continually monitor individuals at the location
    • reference to a policy database to authorize each identified individual for particular levels of behavior such as movement between particular locations or access to specific facilities
  • as last resort apply state-of-the-art acoustic and visual sensors and digital processing technology to identify and pinpoint the location of firearms presence or discharge. The high-tech sensors and associated processing and analysis tools would likely incorporate AI machine learning, which must be able to unambiguously distinguish the normal baseline of activity from a mass shooting or other violent event.
• Report immediately to authorities the location of unauthorized activity or gun violence, using readily available communications technology such as data networks and smartphone app that immediately provide essential information to an armed guard situated near the location, or to a firearm-and-shooter-disabling device.
• Respond to directly confront and counter the firepower of a mass shooter, after interpreting the complex statistics of a positive detection, and applying strategies determined by experts and local authorities that reflect the particular venue. See more details on response strategies in the next menu tab.

Technology for detection and reporting could vary in design and functionality depending on criteria specific to the installation:

• the assessment of anticipated need at a location
• the cost/benefit analysis for the location
• likely impact on normal functioning of the location environment
• optimization opportunities in a particular location

Maximum effectiveness requires applying a systems approach at the involved school, church, event or other public venue:

• There should be integration of security with other activities, bringing together identification/authentication, authorization, admission, attendance-taking, control of movement, access control, polling, assessment, and other logistics.
• Linking together the available monitoring sensors and physical response actuators into a single system would allow sharing resources that should boost overall efficiency and effectiveness.

What would be required to successfully detect and report the essential data that is needed prior to responding directly to confront and counter the firepower of a mass shooter?

• An increased investment would be required in several branches of science and engineering to generate developments in diagnostic sensing and advanced processing, possibly including AI and perhaps quantum computing.
• Business and industry must be encouraged by policies and funding to commit resources and reputations to researching, developing and applying technology tools to directly confront and counter the gun violence of mass shootings.
• The highest possible level of success must be achieved.
• Prescribed methods must be strongly and publicly supported by all elements of society including science, engineering, law, politicians and stakeholders.
• Ultimately the goal would be to dissuade a perpetrator before a tragic event is ever planned, based on the futility for a shooter of getting into a MAD scenario where the outcome is not only assured but tilted against the perpetrator.

Questions to ponder:

• What is the most practical course of action to reduce the risk and impact of mass shootings?
• In what way can each of us contribute to the debate over keeping us safe at schools, churches, events and other public venues?
• What can society engineer that could gain wide public understanding, support and funding?

Consider two different but equally possible direct responses to confront and counter the firepower of a mass shooter:

• Human responders who are adequately trained and have sufficient communications and other tools to effectively respond
• Automated robotic firearm-and-shooter-disabling devices that can be placed as needed in specific venues

To be effective, the human responders and the robotic devices both would be expected to provide a basic set of capabilities:

• Response is sufficiently advanced so that the outcome is heavily tilted or biased to minimize a shooter's impact.
• Response should leverage the fact that while firearms are quicker-shooting and more powerful today, firearms have not changed in most fundamental ways since their invention many centuries ago.
• There are multiple possibilities using focused light, concussive sound, air cannon, chemicals, magnetics, taser and other non-lethal weaponry to effectively disable a perpetrator. The choice of how to respond to the complex statistics of a positive detection most likely will be left to experts and local authorities, and also will depend on the particular venue and the resources that are available and can be applied.

Advocating for these technological solutions should not be conflated with failed futuristic SDI or smart gun experiments. Concepts described above to protect against gun violence do not place blind faith in technology, but rather are built on prior decades, even centuries, of research and development in many areas of science and engineering. When considering technological solutions, consider that to date, there is skepticism about adding socio-politically controversial and somewhat indirect strategies of gun control and mental health policy. These don't seem politically feasible at this moment, and alone probably will not consistently demonstrate effectiveness in keeping us safe at schools, churches, events and other public venues. Similarly, adding armed guards and arming some teachers in schools is rapidly becoming a universal practice, but by itself this practice alone may provide inadequate protection, and might easily be evaded. A more reliable evolutionary path to improved safety from gun violence may be to directly confront and counter the firepower of a mass shooter with a universal robotic firearm-and-shooter-disabling device.

• The device could be offered with varying designs and functionality depending on criteria specific to the installation:
  • the assessment of anticipated need at a location
  • the cost/benefit analysis for the location
  • likely impact on normal functioning of the location environment
  • optimization opportunities in a particular location
• Maximum effectiveness requires applying a systems approach at the involved school, church, event or other public venue:
  • Combining security and other logistics tasks (i.e. authentication, authorization, admission, attendance-taking, control of movement, access control, polling, assessment) into a single unified system with shared resources can boost the overall efficiency of the detection process.
  • Front-ending with a robust detection process, a complete custom-tailored response mechanism could be deployed to minimize all risks and thereby increase safety.

What would be required for American society to be successful in directly confronting and countering the firepower of a mass shooter?

• Detection and reporting information must be appropriately communicated to responders (see prior detect and report tab).
• Human responders must be trained and provided with sufficient communications and other tools to respond.
• Robotic firearm-and-shooter-disabling devices may need to be created and customized for each situation, and coordinated with human responders.
• An increased investment would be required in several branches of science and engineering for research and development into improved tools and methods.
• Business and industry must be encouraged by public policies and funding to commit their resources and reputations to developing and applying technologies and other methods to directly and effectively confront and counter mass shootings and other gun violence.
• A high level of probable success must be demonstrated.
• Methods must be strongly and publicly supported by all elements of society including science, engineering, law, politicians and stakeholders.
• Ultimately the goal would be to dissuade a perpetrator before a tragic event is ever planned, based on the futility for a shooter of getting into a MAD scenario where the outcome is not only assured but tilted against the perpetrator.

Your Fake News FLASH:

Trump models presidential response to US domestic violence and mass shootings at schools, churches and events:

• will demonstrate that America is safe by living with the same protections as the average American adult or school child
• will eliminate White House "third world armed camp" of barricades, fences, gates, guards, sharpshooters on roof, helicopters, and bullet-proof vehicles
• tells entire Secret Service "You're fired!"
• purchases semi-automatic weapons for himself and family to "open carry" for self-protection
• announces "Arms Race to the Top" for schools to implement more effective weapons programs in each classroom
• promises first elementary class in US that carries concealed weapons will be honored with visit to Oval Office for show-and-tell
• mandates gun training for all citizens as prerequisite for voter registration and income tax standard deduction
• introduces "Guns for Good Gangs" safe neighborhoods initiative
• proposes "Tanks Fight Terror" federal armored-vehicle tax credit, and orders end to local restrictions on driving and parking personal tanks on the street
• announces "Trump Shooting Palaces" along the border wall with Mexico and Canada so that Americans have a place to practice

Your Fake News FLASH:

Some auto insurance companies are planning to:

• guarantee "duel discounts" to drivers who, after a collision, resolve a claim "on the spot"
• provide rapid roadside service for multiple bullseye windshield repairs
• offer a discount for installing auto-tracking tripod mount in vehicle with warning sticker on window to deter theft when parked
• provide partial reimbursement for retrofitting with technology that can obliterate objects in vehicle's path to avoid collisions
• supply stickers that must be attached near the sight and trigger of drivers' guns that say "I'm not driving now"

Your Fake News FLASH:

Fellow legislators offer amendments to expand NJ Rep. MacArthur's concealed-carry-across-state-lines bill:

• tax credit for having a coat that has more than thirty pockets inside and out
• tax credit based on how much useless stuff taxpayer conceals on their person or at home or office
• funding for a million state stop-and-frisk officers to monitor explosion in hoarders carrying concealed material across state lines
• concealing merchandise without paying for it and walking out of a store will no longer be a crime
• liquor that is concealed in a coat and has a long straw-type tube for drinking will be exempt from public drinking prohibitions
• concealing a second person under a coat to get into a movie theater with one ticket will not be a crime
• treatment for accidental self-injury from a concealed object on your person will be universally eligible for Medicare benefits
• funding to fast-track research on safe ways to sleep with concealed objects
• incentives to print out your documents and carry them around concealed in a coat, or at least saying so, like "I have the evidence."

Your Fake News FLASH:

The #metoo2 movement advocates "open carry" to fight sexual predation, since:

• what's needed to protect against some bad guy's pistol is a good woman with a pistol

Your Fake News FLASH:

Hollywood is "on board this stagecoach" and committed to:

• portraying "lots of fantastic new weapons to keep us safe."
• choosing themes where the bad guys get taken out before society is destroyed
• including the disclaimer "These are professionals, don't try this at home" for the many rather unbelievable stunts while using guns
• paying the cleanup costs when a news commentator's head explodes trying to explain how an industry constantly cranking out shoot-em-up experiences for all to see is anti-gun

Your Fake News FLASH:

Technology firms and mega-billionaire foundations are collaborating on:

• rapid development and deployment of a "robotic defense" for schools, churches, and events
  • will instantly detect any armed individual on premises who might be a mass shooter
  • will instantly disable said individual and all weapons until authorities arrive
• "transformer" classroom desks that morph at push of button, each creating protective shield surrounding one or two students
• ceiling sprinkler systems that are automatically triggered to deploy projectile-blocking confetti throughout classroom
• holographic projection system creating fake images that distract attacker away from actual scene in a classroom
• 100% light-trapping window shades, walls, ceilings and floors in classroom to completely darken room to hide occupants
• travel-cost-saving measure for high school athletics that adds artillery competition between neighboring schools where both teams can stay "home"

Your Fake News FLASH:

Industry developments:

• green-savvy manufacturers researching "boomerang ammunition" that automatically returns to start point to be reused/recycled
• making a splash with color promoted by paintball industry as fashionable choice for expressing your emotions
• Rome: Italian medical conference speaker says "too mucha salt gunna harm you" and points to case of 6-year-old caught with a salt arms object, apparently taken from large sculpture bust carved from a salt block
• laser safety glasses are hottest Christmas gift item after military announces switch from traditional guns to laser weapons
• manufacturer introduces new "taser flavor" varieties, with "tickle", "arouse", "sleep", "laugh", "tweet", "wired" and others.

Your Fake News FLASH:

Magazine sellers advocate for bigger magazines to pack in better experience for users:

• more shots at reaching all possible types in the magazine's target audience
• easier to fan through a big magazine to zero-in on what you're looking for
• greater opportunity for buyer to uncover thrilling experiences with bigger magazine
• less frequent need to go get another magazine since a bigger magazine lasts longer
• bigger, heavier magazine keeps user in place, less likely to move or lose concentration
• more cost-effective for seller to distribute fewer magazines that are bigger
• more trading value if the magazine is bigger and in good condition

Your Fake News FLASH:

Congressional Cocky Caucus (CCC) strategizes best practices:

• wear professional gear to look sharp, be safe, and boost your success
• rely on trustworthy friends to help you set your sights correctly
• make sure everyone is accounted for and definitely behind you before taking that big shot
• find your trigger to get the action going
• get a lock on any trigger where things might go in the wrong direction
• pull back on the hammer, yell "Cocky Caucus" for the team, then hold back on the big release until you have your aim
• concentrate on making major points on your target, and don't get distracted
• hold steady in the follow-through so that your great shot will turn out the way you want